减少和涌现

IF 3.2 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Pascal Ludwig
{"title":"减少和涌现","authors":"Pascal Ludwig","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190690649.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How are our scientific theories related to each other? Do they draw, together, a unified picture of the world, or should we infer from their disunity that reality is ontologically plural in some way? This chapter addresses the question of whether ontological pluralism is a defendable metaphysical thesis and whether philosophy of science has anything to say about it. It examines whether psychological phenomena possess an irreducible nature of their own that would be distinct from the nature of the phenomena studied by neuroscience. If, on the contrary, the explanatory gap between physics and special sciences is to be filled, the question is raised as to how it has to be done. Is conceptual analysis enough? Or should the explanatory gap be simply dismissed as being badly formulated? The chapter proposes a discussion of the current reductionist strategies.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduction and Emergence\",\"authors\":\"Pascal Ludwig\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190690649.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How are our scientific theories related to each other? Do they draw, together, a unified picture of the world, or should we infer from their disunity that reality is ontologically plural in some way? This chapter addresses the question of whether ontological pluralism is a defendable metaphysical thesis and whether philosophy of science has anything to say about it. It examines whether psychological phenomena possess an irreducible nature of their own that would be distinct from the nature of the phenomena studied by neuroscience. If, on the contrary, the explanatory gap between physics and special sciences is to be filled, the question is raised as to how it has to be done. Is conceptual analysis enough? Or should the explanatory gap be simply dismissed as being badly formulated? The chapter proposes a discussion of the current reductionist strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"97 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190690649.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190690649.003.0008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的科学理论是如何相互关联的?它们是一起描绘出一幅统一的世界图景,还是我们应该从它们的不统一中推断出现实在某种程度上是多元的?本章探讨本体论多元论是否是一个可辩护的形而上学命题,以及科学哲学对此是否有什么可说的。它考察心理现象是否具有其自身的不可简化的性质,这将不同于神经科学所研究的现象的性质。相反,如果要填补物理学和特殊科学之间在解释上的差距,就必须提出怎样去做的问题。概念分析就足够了吗?还是应该简单地将解释上的差距视为表述不当而不予理会?本章对当前的还原论策略进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reduction and Emergence
How are our scientific theories related to each other? Do they draw, together, a unified picture of the world, or should we infer from their disunity that reality is ontologically plural in some way? This chapter addresses the question of whether ontological pluralism is a defendable metaphysical thesis and whether philosophy of science has anything to say about it. It examines whether psychological phenomena possess an irreducible nature of their own that would be distinct from the nature of the phenomena studied by neuroscience. If, on the contrary, the explanatory gap between physics and special sciences is to be filled, the question is raised as to how it has to be done. Is conceptual analysis enough? Or should the explanatory gap be simply dismissed as being badly formulated? The chapter proposes a discussion of the current reductionist strategies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science encourages the application of philosophical techniques to issues raised by the natural and human sciences. These include general questions of scientific knowledge and objectivity, as well as more particular problems arising within specific disciplines. Topics currently being discussed in the journal include: causation, the logic of natural selection, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the direction of time, probability, confirmation, foundations of mathematics, supertasks and the theory of emotion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信